TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing amounts: S. No Giver Company Amount (Rs.) 1. M/s. Designarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd., 2,80,000/- 13,634/- 12,50,000/- 15,43,634/- 2. M/s. Designarch Consultants (P) Ltd., 26,00,000/- 3. M/s. Jaypee Architects (P) Ltd., M/s. Jinendra Securities (P) Ltd., 53,633/- Total : 41,97,267/- 2. That both the lower authorities did not understood and appreciate the facts correctly while making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 41,97,267/-." 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an architect and the return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 23,80,520/-. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property C-62, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Preet Vihar, New Delhi, jointly owned by the assessee and his wife and this was a normal business transaction. As per assessee, this amount was returned on 29,03.2011. The sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- received on 09.03.2011 was security deposit against rent for the very same property. The assessee filed a copy of the rent agreement which did not mention anything about advance rent or the security deposit. Therefore, plea of the assessee that it was normal business transaction, is not acceptable. As regards addition of Rs. 13,634/- assessee did not file any evidence, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 15,43,634/- on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. 4.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of Rs. 13,634/- on account of amount received from M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. The same is dismissed as not pressed. 7. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the rent agreement at PB-22 and confirmation at PB-20. He has also referred to Agreement to Sell at PB 31 to 33 and PB 36 is confirmation on account of imprest amount. He has, therefore, submitted that since these were the normal business transactions and genuineness of the transaction have not been doubted, therefore, it would not attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on account of deemed dividend. 8. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that conditions of Section 2(22)(e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities below rejected the claim of assessee because the amount of advance rent and security deposit is not mentioned in the rent agreement. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also referred to the return filed by assessee to show that rent have been offered for taxation and all transactions are through banking channel. Therefore, merely advance rent and security deposit is not mentioned in the rent agreement would not prove that assessee has not received the advance rent and security deposit from the tenant and let-out the property in question. Since the amount is paid as regards the tenanted premises, therefore, it is in normal ordinary transaction of letting out of property. Therefore, it could not be treated as loan or advance so as to a....